V. I.

Lenin

Dedicated to Our “Conciliators” and Advocates of “Agreement”

Comrade K.’s [1] letter deserves the profound attention of all to whom
our Party is dear. A better exposure of Golos policy (and of
Golos diplomacy), a better refutation of the views and hopes of
our “conciliators” and advocates of “agreement” it is hard to imagine.

Is the case cited by Comrade K. an exception? No, it is
typical of the advocates of a Stolypin labour party, for we know
very well that a number of writers in Nasha Zarya, Dyelo Zhizni , etc., have already been systematically preaching
these very liquidationist ideas for many a year . These
liquidators do not often meet worker members of the Party; the Party very
rarely receives such exact information of their disgraceful utterances as
that for which we have to thank Comrade K.; but, always and everywhere , the preaching of the group of independent
legalists is conducted precisely in this spirit. It is impossible to doubt
this when periodicals of the Nasha Zarya and Dyelo Zhizni
type exist. It is to the advantage of only the most cowardly and most
despicable defenders of the liquidators to keep silent about this.

Compare this fact with the methods employed by people like Trotsky, who
shout about “agreement” and about their hostility to the liquidators. We
know these methods only too well; these people shout at the top of their
voices that they are “neither Bolsheviks nor Mensheviks, but revolutionary
Social-Democrats”; they zealously vow and swear that they are foes of
liquidationism and staunch defenders of the illegal R.S.D.L.P.; they
vociferously abuse those who expose the liquidators, the Potresovs; they say, that the anti
liquidators are “exaggerating” the issue; but do not say a word
against the definite liquidators, Potresov, Martov, Levitsky, Dan, Larin,
and so on.

The real purpose of such methods is obvious. They use phrase-mongering to shield the real liquidators and do
everything to hamper the work of the anti-liquidators. This was
exactly the policy pursued by Rabocheye Dyelo , [2] so notorious in the history of the R.S.D.L.P. for its
unprincipled character; it vowed and swore, “We are not Economists, not at
all, we are wholly in favour of political struggle”; but in reality it
provided a screen for Rabochaya Mysl [3] and the Economists, directing its whole struggle against
those who exposed and refuted the Economists.

Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the “Trotskyites and conciliators”
like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators
state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where
they are wrong, whereas the Trotskys deceive the workers,
cover up the evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and
to remedy it. Whoever supports Trotsky’s puny group supports a policy of
lying and of deceiving the workers, a policy of shielding the
liquidators. Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia, and the
shielding of their deeds by “revolutionary” phrase-mongering
abroad—there you have the essence of the policy of “Trotskyism”.

Hence it is clear, furthermore, that any “agreement” with the
Golos group that evades the question of the liquidators’ centre in
Russia, that is, the leading lights of Nasha Zarya and Dyelo Zhizni , would be nothing but a continuation of this deception of the
workers, this covering up of the evil. Since the Plenary Meeting of
January 191O the Golos sup porters have made it abundantly clear
that they are capable of “subscribing” to any resolution, not allowing
any resolution “to hamper the freedom” of their liquidationist activities
one iota. Abroad they subscribe to resolutions saying that any
disparagement of the importance of the illegal Party is evidence of
bourgeois influence among the proletariat, while in Russia they assist the
Potresovs, Larins, and Levitskys, who, far from taking part in illegal
work, scoff at it and try to destroy the illegal Party.

At present Trotsky, together with Bundists like Mr. Lieber (an extreme
liquidator, who publicly defended Mr. Potresov in his lectures and who now,
in order to hush up the fact, is stirring up squabbles and conflicts),
together with Letts like

Schwartz, [4] and so on, is concocting just such an “agreement” with
the Golos group. Let nobody be deceived on this score: their
agreement will be an agreement to shield the liquidators.

P.S. These lines were already set up when reports appeared in the press
of an “agreement” between the Golos group and Trotsky, the
Bundist and the Lett liquidator. Our words have been fully borne out: this
is an agreement to shield the liquidators in Russia, an agreement
between the servants of the Potresovs.

---
Notes:
[1]
In this letter, published in Sotsial-Democrat , No. 23,
September 1 (14), 1911, it was reported that a prominent St. Petersburg
liquidator, addressing a meeting of worker members of the Party in Vyborg
District, proposed that instead of reviving the Party organisation they
should set up “organising groups” for legal educational work. This
proposal was met with a unanimous rebuff, no one voting in its favour.

[2]
Rabocheye Dyelo ( Workers’ Cause )—a magazine of the
Economists, organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad. It was
published at irregular intervals in Geneva from 1899 to 1902. Lenin
criticised the views expressed by the Rabocheye Dyelo group in a
number of articles published in Iskra and in his book What Is To Be Done ?

[3]
Rabochaya Mysl ( Workers’ Thought )—the Economist newspaper published from 1897 to 1902. Lenin’s criticisms of the views of
Rabochaya Mysl as a Russian variety of international opportunism
appeared in articles published in Iskra and in his book What Is To Be Done ?

[4]
Schwartz (U. Elias)—a Latvian Social-Democrat, liquidator.